Comments on: The Peace of Christ and the Soteriology of the State http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/ Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:53:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Tom 1st http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5155 Tom 1st Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:24:14 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5155 I don't like the term pacifism. I'd rather say creative non-violence (CNV) because CMV does not have the overtones of non-resistance. Jesus did not advocate non-resistance, he advocated non-violence. The question, then, is whether defending another innocent person is violence. Doing what we can to get a gun out of someone's hand is not violent, it is asserting the personhood of the innocent person. Once you have the gun, though, excessive force must not be used. also, as a far as a situation will allow, the use of non-physical and creative force should be used. So, I don't think either position is intuitive. Rather, I think at this point we have sinful tendency toward violence and Jesus wants to correct that tendency in us. The only question is - are we creative enough to consider all possible means of resistance before we resort to violence? If we did, I dare say we would have no need of violence. BTW, there was an interesting write up about this in Christianity Today a week or so ago. It's probably worth checking out. Later Tom I don’t like the term pacifism. I’d rather say creative non-violence (CNV) because CMV does not have the overtones of non-resistance. Jesus did not advocate non-resistance, he advocated non-violence.

The question, then, is whether defending another innocent person is violence. Doing what we can to get a gun out of someone’s hand is not violent, it is asserting the personhood of the innocent person. Once you have the gun, though, excessive force must not be used. also, as a far as a situation will allow, the use of non-physical and creative force should be used.

So, I don’t think either position is intuitive. Rather, I think at this point we have sinful tendency toward violence and Jesus wants to correct that tendency in us. The only question is - are we creative enough to consider all possible means of resistance before we resort to violence? If we did, I dare say we would have no need of violence.

BTW, there was an interesting write up about this in Christianity Today a week or so ago. It’s probably worth checking out.

Later
Tom

]]> By: Philip http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5135 Philip Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:55:54 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5135 Hey Tom, ok I think we pretty much agree. My view is that we can learn about morality in other ways, but if we come to know that the Bible says something is right or wrong that settles the matter. Sound right? I'm not sure whether you were implying this or not but I don't think it follows from the fact that people disagree about whether torture is wrong that someone can't know that it's wrong. Some people still believe that the world is flat or that human sacrifice is ok, but we still know that they are wrong about these things. Also, as christians we think we know that God exists even though this is very controversial. Regarding pacifism, would you admit that it has at least some pretty counterintuitive implications? Think about cases where a really bad guy is torturing an innocent person to death and the only way to stop him is to punch him in the face. Doesn't it seem like you should hit him? For my M.A. I argued for two different things. I argued that there is such a thing as the property of goodness. And I also argued that people being morally responsible for their actions is inconsistent with their actions being determined. (this kinda supports arminianism or open theism against calvinism) I'm also enjoying the discussion, sorry it took me a while to respond. Philip Hey Tom,
ok I think we pretty much agree. My view is that we can learn about morality in other ways, but if we come to know that the Bible says something is right or wrong that settles the matter. Sound right?
I’m not sure whether you were implying this or not but I don’t think it follows from the fact that people disagree about whether torture is wrong that someone can’t know that it’s wrong. Some people still believe that the world is flat or that human sacrifice is ok, but we still know that they are wrong about these things. Also, as christians we think we know that God exists even though this is very controversial.

Regarding pacifism, would you admit that it has at least some pretty counterintuitive implications? Think about cases where a really bad guy is torturing an innocent person to death and the only way to stop him is to punch him in the face. Doesn’t it seem like you should hit him?

For my M.A. I argued for two different things. I argued that there is such a thing as the property of goodness. And I also argued that people being morally responsible for their actions is inconsistent with their actions being determined. (this kinda supports arminianism or open theism against calvinism)

I’m also enjoying the discussion, sorry it took me a while to respond.
Philip

]]> By: Honzo http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5122 Honzo Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:31:31 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5122 Ethical theory is mind-bending, well, the justification of an ethical theory is mind-bending. How does one argue for a universal ethic, which I gather we all posit, without appealing to special revelation of that ethic, which no one outside our shared tradition will accept? Further, even if we accept the divine command theory of special revelation, how do we explain why the ethical imperatives were chosen by the divine commander? If they can be traced to some rational principle, then it is not really divinely commanded, but instead based in some other theory. Also, if they are in fact, not based in some other ethical theory, then does that not make them arbitrary? If the ethical imperatives mandated by God are arbitrary, is that a good thing and should they be obeyed on God's word alone? Ethical theory is mind-bending, well, the justification of an ethical theory is mind-bending. How does one argue for a universal ethic, which I gather we all posit, without appealing to special revelation of that ethic, which no one outside our shared tradition will accept? Further, even if we accept the divine command theory of special revelation, how do we explain why the ethical imperatives were chosen by the divine commander? If they can be traced to some rational principle, then it is not really divinely commanded, but instead based in some other theory. Also, if they are in fact, not based in some other ethical theory, then does that not make them arbitrary? If the ethical imperatives mandated by God are arbitrary, is that a good thing and should they be obeyed on God’s word alone?

]]> By: Tom 1st http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5113 Tom 1st Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:18:36 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5113 Oh yeah.... As far as your MA in Ethics - what's the topic of your thesis? Oh yeah….

As far as your MA in Ethics - what’s the topic of your thesis?

]]> By: Tom 1st http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5112 Tom 1st Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:16:29 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5112 Phillip, I think the gap of our disagreement is closing - now that we are understanding each other a little more. I agree that there are ways to discern right and wrong outside the Bible. But, for the Christian, our moral faculties are always held captive to the biblical text over and above that of the non-biblical means of establishing morality. I don't think pacifism, from an extra-biblical perspective, is intuitively good or evil. There are seculars on all sides of that debate. So, I would disagree with that claim. I am arguing, however, that the bible (NT) as the ultimately authoritative source for Christian morality, seems to support a pacifist perspective. Even if my moral faculties were pointing me to another position, my mind and heart must ultimately bow to the Scriptures. And just to quibble - as far as torture goes, there are many in history who have not considered it wrong. There are many in our own government right now - hence, the discussion over 'what counts as torture.' Enjoying the discussion, Phillip. I think we're actually going somewhere with this:) Phillip,
I think the gap of our disagreement is closing - now that we are understanding each other a little more. I agree that there are ways to discern right and wrong outside the Bible. But, for the Christian, our moral faculties are always held captive to the biblical text over and above that of the non-biblical means of establishing morality.

I don’t think pacifism, from an extra-biblical perspective, is intuitively good or evil. There are seculars on all sides of that debate. So, I would disagree with that claim. I am arguing, however, that the bible (NT) as the ultimately authoritative source for Christian morality, seems to support a pacifist perspective. Even if my moral faculties were pointing me to another position, my mind and heart must ultimately bow to the Scriptures.

And just to quibble - as far as torture goes, there are many in history who have not considered it wrong. There are many in our own government right now - hence, the discussion over ‘what counts as torture.’

Enjoying the discussion, Phillip. I think we’re actually going somewhere with this:)

]]> By: Philip http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5111 Philip Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:43:31 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5111 Hey Tom, I agree that the argument from the Luke passage isn't very good. Regarding my argument, I don't think I've been very clear. My original claim was that Christians have nonbiblical sources of evidence concerning moral truths. Here's an argument for this claim. (1) Christians can know that torture is wrong without having biblical evidence that torture is wrong. (e.g. the guy who just became a christian and never read the Bible) (2) If (1), then can Christians have some nonbiblical evidence that torture is wrong. (3) Therefore, Christians can have nonbiblical evidence that torture is wrong. I'm not sure how this connects up with the claim that nonbiblical moral faculties are corrupt. I agree that they are corrupt to a degree, but I'm arguing that they are not so corrupt that we can't get evidence from them. Thus, I suggest that we could have nonbiblical evidence that pacifism is false. Another thing to note is that while its true that our moral faculties are corrupt/fallible, the cognitive faculties we use to interpret the the Bible might be similarly corrupt/fallible. So it's possible that we shouldn't rely on our evidence from biblical intepretation much more than evidence from our consciences (especially in cases where the Bible is difficult to interpret). I'm not sure how much we are disagreeing. Maybe we are just talking past each other. I also should note that I might be a little biased on this issue since I'm just finishing up a masters in ethics which will turn out to be mostly a waste of time if you're right :) Philip Hey Tom, I agree that the argument from the Luke passage isn’t very good. Regarding my argument, I don’t think I’ve been very clear. My original claim was that Christians have nonbiblical sources of evidence concerning moral truths. Here’s an argument for this claim.

(1) Christians can know that torture is wrong without having biblical evidence that torture is wrong. (e.g. the guy who just became a christian and never read the Bible)

(2) If (1), then can Christians have some nonbiblical evidence that torture is wrong.

(3) Therefore, Christians can have nonbiblical evidence that torture is wrong.

I’m not sure how this connects up with the claim that nonbiblical moral faculties are corrupt. I agree that they are corrupt to a degree, but I’m arguing that they are not so corrupt that we can’t get evidence from them. Thus, I suggest that we could have nonbiblical evidence that pacifism is false.
Another thing to note is that while its true that our moral faculties are corrupt/fallible, the cognitive faculties we use to interpret the the Bible might be similarly corrupt/fallible. So it’s possible that we shouldn’t rely on our evidence from biblical intepretation much more than evidence from our consciences (especially in cases where the Bible is difficult to interpret).

I’m not sure how much we are disagreeing. Maybe we are just talking past each other. I also should note that I might be a little biased on this issue since I’m just finishing up a masters in ethics which will turn out to be mostly a waste of time if you’re right :)

Philip

]]> By: Tom 1st http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5108 Tom 1st Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:51:16 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5108 phillip, As for the Luke passage: Being a soldier in the first cent. wasn't the same as being one now - you couldn't just choose when to become one and when to leave (not that you even can now). You actually see in the first several centuries, soldiers having to wait until after their 'tour of duty' to be baptized and become officially Christian. Furthermore, this is an argument from silence - tricky things at best. The emphasis of the passage is elsewhere. I think unbelievers have a corrupted morality. Sometimes that morality may line up with Christian morality, but it still lacks the Holy Spirit and the theological underpinnings. And again, I'm not laying an ethical framework for all people - just Christians. Our moral faculties are created anew in Christ - being sanctified by the Spirit and washed by the word. If my ethical understandings go outside of explicit biblical teachings or principles derived from explicit biblical teachings, I have a problem. I guess I'm still not seeing a good logical argument against this thought. Or - more likely, I'm not understanding what you're telling me. I'm kind of dense sometimes! Cheers. phillip,
As for the Luke passage: Being a soldier in the first cent. wasn’t the same as being one now - you couldn’t just choose when to become one and when to leave (not that you even can now). You actually see in the first several centuries, soldiers having to wait until after their ‘tour of duty’ to be baptized and become officially Christian.

Furthermore, this is an argument from silence - tricky things at best. The emphasis of the passage is elsewhere.

I think unbelievers have a corrupted morality. Sometimes that morality may line up with Christian morality, but it still lacks the Holy Spirit and the theological underpinnings. And again, I’m not laying an ethical framework for all people - just Christians. Our moral faculties are created anew in Christ - being sanctified by the Spirit and washed by the word. If my ethical understandings go outside of explicit biblical teachings or principles derived from explicit biblical teachings, I have a problem. I guess I’m still not seeing a good logical argument against this thought.

Or - more likely, I’m not understanding what you’re telling me. I’m kind of dense sometimes!

Cheers.

]]> By: Theology for the Masses » Blog Archive » Question of the Day: Christians and Government http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5095 Theology for the Masses » Blog Archive » Question of the Day: Christians and Government Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:13:01 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5095 [...] we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as [...] [...] we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as [...]

]]> By: philip http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5089 philip Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:30:26 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5089 Hey Tom, The passage Honzo quoted is thought by some to refute pacifism because if all violence is wrong then being a soldier is wrong and if being a soldier is wrong then the soldiers would have been told to quit being soldiers rather than just to be content with their pay. You seem to accept that non-christians have non-biblical evidence for moral claims. What do you think happens to this non-biblical evidence when people become christians? Suppose that before Smith is a christian he knows based on evidence from his conscience that torture is wrong, when Smith becomes a christian is this evidence (that was good enough before) suddenly not enough to justify his belief that torture is wrong? Does he lose his knowledge that torture is wrong until he studies the Bible enough to learn some principle inconsistent with torture being permissable? That would be a strange result. Henry, I think the two moral orders suggestion is very interesting. Would you say that christians have obligations to be loving and merciful but non-christians only have a smaller (or different) set of obligations? Another way to go would be to say that non-christians have the same obligations as christians but that we can't expect them to fulfill these obligations. Cheapham, You suggest that we shouldn't appeal to non-christian ethicists. What would you say about other areas of philosophy? Most of the best contemporary thinkers in epistemology and metaphysics aren't christians. It seems like we do learn things like 'justified true belief is not the same as knowledge' from non-christians. Is there something special about ethics which makes it so we can't learn from non-christians? It seems like I could learn from a non-christian something like 'moral properties supervene on descriptive properties'. In general, the view that we could only appeal to christian ethicists seems like it would commit you to offering an ad hominem against any argument produced by a non-christian. Christian and non-christian ethicists who hold identical views on a certain matter will often give identical arguments for their view. Why would the christian's presentation of the argument be acceptable for use while the non-christian's presentation is not? Luke seems to appeal to Plato in Acts 5:29. "we must obey God rather then men" (the apostles) vs. "I shall obey God rather then you" (Socrates). Both of these claims are made in the context of responding to political leaders who order an important teaching from God to be stopped. If Luke is indeed appealing to Plato as an ethical source, then that would give us evidence that we can learn from non-christian ethicists. -Philip Hey Tom,

The passage Honzo quoted is thought by some to refute pacifism because if all violence is wrong then being a soldier is wrong and if being a soldier is wrong then the soldiers would have been told to quit being soldiers rather than just to be content with their pay.

You seem to accept that non-christians have non-biblical evidence for moral claims. What do you think happens to this non-biblical evidence when people become christians? Suppose that before Smith is a christian he knows based on evidence from his conscience that torture is wrong, when Smith becomes a christian is this evidence (that was good enough before) suddenly not enough to justify his belief that torture is wrong? Does he lose his knowledge that torture is wrong until he studies the Bible enough to learn some principle inconsistent with torture being permissable? That would be a strange result.

Henry,

I think the two moral orders suggestion is very interesting. Would you say that christians have obligations to be loving and merciful but non-christians only have a smaller (or different) set of obligations? Another way to go would be to say that non-christians have the same obligations as christians but that we can’t expect them to fulfill these obligations.

Cheapham,

You suggest that we shouldn’t appeal to non-christian ethicists. What would you say about other areas of philosophy? Most of the best contemporary thinkers in epistemology and metaphysics aren’t christians. It seems like we do learn things like ‘justified true belief is not the same as knowledge’ from non-christians. Is there something special about ethics which makes it so we can’t learn from non-christians? It seems like I could learn from a non-christian something like ‘moral properties supervene on descriptive properties’. In general, the view that we could only appeal to christian ethicists seems like it would commit you to offering an ad hominem against any argument produced by a non-christian. Christian and non-christian ethicists who hold identical views on a certain matter will often give identical arguments for their view. Why would the christian’s presentation of the argument be acceptable for use while the non-christian’s presentation is not?

Luke seems to appeal to Plato in Acts 5:29. “we must obey God rather then men” (the apostles) vs. “I shall obey God rather then you” (Socrates). Both of these claims are made in the context of responding to political leaders who order an important teaching from God to be stopped. If Luke is indeed appealing to Plato as an ethical source, then that would give us evidence that we can learn from non-christian ethicists.

-Philip

]]> By: tom http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5088 tom Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:11:16 +0000 http://www.masstheology.com/2007/11/06/the-peace-of-christ-and-the-soteriology-of-the-state/#comment-5088 I agree with JR. I've been doing some work in the Magnificat lately - wow - very subversive to the Empire. It has been banned by a number of contemporary governments from being read aloud to the masses. I'd say theirs an anti-empire bend to Luke. I agree with JR. I’ve been doing some work in the Magnificat lately - wow - very subversive to the Empire. It has been banned by a number of contemporary governments from being read aloud to the masses. I’d say theirs an anti-empire bend to Luke.

]]>